Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 11, 1998
Surface Transportation Board Amendments of 1998 - Amends Federal transportation law to declare that it is U.S. rail transportation policy to: (1) encourage and promote effective competition within the rail industry; and (2) discourage artificial barriers to interchange and car supply which can impede competition between shortline, regional, and Class I carriers and block effective rail service to shippers. (Sec. 3) Extends from 30 days to 60 days (including an additional 60 day extension, but no longer than 18 months unless the Board requests an extension from the Congress) the period of time that the Surface Transportation Board may direct the handling, routing, and movement of rail carrier traffic during emergency situations involving congestion of traffic, unauthorized cessation of operations, or other failure of traffic movement. Sets forth congressional procedures for the approval of a third or subsequent extension. (Sec. 5) Directs the Board to: (1) review rules and procedures applicable to rate complaints and other complaints filed with it by small shippers; and (2) identify, and reduce or eliminate, any such rules or procedures that are unduly burdensome to them; and (3) notify specified congressional committees that such changes in the rules and procedures are appropriate. (Sec. 6) Directs the Board to complete a rulemaking (as outlined in STB Ex Parte No. 575) to determine whether and to what extent it should consider product and geographic competition in making market dominance determinations. (Sec. 7) Directs the Board to reexamine (as outlined in STB Ex Parte No. 575) its standards and procedures for determining adequate railroad revenue levels and report the results, including recommendations, to specified congressional committees. (Sec. 8) Provides for situations in which a shipper and rail carrier enter into a contract for transportation that requires a through route with the connecting carrier and there is no reasonable alternative route that can be constructed without the connecting carrier' participation. Requires a connecting carrier in such a situation, upon request, to establish a through route and a contract rate (bottleneck rate) for such transportation unless the connecting carrier shows that: (1) the interchange requested is not operationally feasible; or (2) the through route would significantly impair the connecting carrier's ability to serve its other traffic. Requires contract rate complaints to be limited to the rate that applies to the portion of the through route not governed by the contract. (Sec. 9) Directs the Board to promulgate regulations adopting a simplified dispute resolution mechanism that will expedite (with a minimum of discovery) the arbitration of disputes before the Board (other than rate reasonableness cases that would be decided under constrained market pricing principles). (Sec. 10) Requires the Board, in proceedings which involve the merger or control of at least two Class I railroads, to consider, among other things, means and methods to encourage and expand competition between and among rail carriers in the affected region or the national rail system. Authorizes the Board to impose conditions to encourage and expand such competition, provided that they do not cause substantial harm to the benefits of the transaction to the affected carriers or the public. (Sec. 11) Excludes agreements affecting only the transportation of household goods from the requirement that Board approval of route and rate agreements between motor carriers expire within three years of such approval unless renewed.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.2164 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.2164 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.2164 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.2164 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.